SOFTWARE
Introduction to Consequence Modelling
Webinar February 2017
01 February 2017
Ungraded
1 DNV GL © 01 February 2017 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
Speakers
Kenny Shaba
Phast and Safeti Product Manager with extensive experience in
Technical Safety projects (especially QRA) for both onshore
and offshore assets
Mark Hunter
Chartered Engineer in DNV GL’s Advisory business
11 years’ experience of safety related studies in the oil & gas
sector
Ungraded
2 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Agenda
Why consequence modelling? E.g. societal and regulatory drivers
– What is consequence modelling etc?
Key hazards types to consider (fires, explosions and toxic hazards) and how to evaluate their impact potential
Operational and practical applications of consequence modelling
Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence modelling
Q&A
Ungraded
3 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Why Consequence Modelling?
Ungraded
4 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
The Oil and Gas/Chemical/Process Industries
Ungraded
5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
The Oil and Gas/Chemical/Process Industries
Ungraded
5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
The Oil and Gas/Chemical/Process Industries
Ungraded
5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
The Oil and Gas/Chemical/Process Industries
Reference: Geoff Chamberlain and Bassam Burgan (2016) The Explosion at the Caribbean Petroleum Corporation (CAPECO) storage
facility at Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of FABIG TM 86 “Lessons Learnt from Recent Accidents”.
Ungraded
5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Controlling the hazards is key…
Robust and detailed evaluation of process hazards is key to developing an effective management
strategy. Why?
Control of Risks
To control risks you have to manage processes to reduce them
Management
To be able to manage risks you have to understand them.
To be able to understand risks you have to analyse the risks. Understanding
If you don’t do the analysis you might not fully understand the issues.
Analysis
If you don’t fully understand, you might not be able to target your effort to reduce risks cost
effectively and it will be harder to justify your decisions.
Ungraded
6 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
IMPACTS and DRIVERS
IMPACTS DRIVERS
Ungraded
7 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
THE SAFETY PARADOX
Most successful companies – good at managing risk
+ exploiting opportunity
CM is a key element of risk management – “business
enabler”/ “adds value”
“People react to what they see”
Here comes the paradox – “Safety done well is
not visible”/”Safety done badly is highly
visible”
Safety is the status quo – This is what is expected
Ungraded
8 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
THE COST OF GETTING IT WRONG
“If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident” – Trevor Kletz
LITIGATION ASSET DAMAGE
BUSINESS DISRUPTION
LOST REVENUE
SHARE PRICE ECONOMIC COSTS
$1860
FINES
INSURANCE PAYOUTS
MILLION
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROPERTY LOSS
REMEDIATION COMPANY REPUTATION
Reference: Marsh (2016). “The 100 Largest Losses 1974-2015 Large property damage losses in the hydrocarbon industry” 24th
Edition. Available Online.
Ungraded
9 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Key hazards types to consider (fires, explosions
and toxic hazards) and how to evaluate their
impact potential
Ungraded
10 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Key hazards types to consider
Flammable (Natural Gas etc.)
– Fires
– Jet, Pool, Flash, Fireball, BLEVE
– Explosions
– Confined VCE, Unconfined CVE
Toxic (e.g. H2S, Ammonia)
Cryogenic (e.g. LNG)
Asphyxiation (Inert Gas e.g. CO2 and N2)
Smoke
Ungraded
11 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Consequence Modelling - Stages
Stage 1: Physical Effects Modelling
– Key goal – understanding the physical
characteristics/make up of hazard in the
environment
Stage 2: Impact modelling
– Key goal – translation of hazard ranges
to Tangible impacts: life, property,
environment
– Less tangible impacts
Ungraded
12 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Evaluating Impact Potential
Various methods exist
Simple to Complex
«Hand calculations» to «Look up tables» to «Excel»
to «Software applications»
Key decision factors – validated models and
methodology, reflects latest science, transparent,
high quality trusted platform, widely accessible, user
friendly, long shelf life…
Recommend a fully integrated package (effects
modelling and impact analysis) with detailed
modelling logic e.g Phast
Ungraded
13 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Factors to consider for consequence modelling
Scenario/Case information
Environmental conditions
Choice of scientific tool/model
Ungraded
14 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Operational and practical applications of
consequence modelling
Ungraded
15 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
A few popular applications…
As part of a (Quantitative Risk Analysis) QRA study
Hazardous Area Classification
Facility Siting
Chimney Stack sizing
Fugitive emissions
Vent modelling
Equipment Separation Distances
Site Layout Optimization
Flare height determination
Emergency Response
Etc.
Ungraded
16 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Example - Flammable Gas
Unit-15
Unit-21
Unit-12
Unit-25
Unit-10
Control Room
Unit-30
Utilities
Warehouse
LFL
½ LFL
Ungraded
17 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Example - Explosions – 100mbar
10-3 per year
10-4 per year
10-5 per year
10-6 per year
10-7 per year
Ungraded
18 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Example - Risk - QRA
10-3 per year
10-4 per year
10-5 per year
10-6 per year
10-7 per year
Ungraded
19 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence
modelling
Ungraded
20 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence modelling
Many challenges exist. Some key ones are as follows:
Inadequate problem definition and understanding
Analytical tools (Selection, Application, Analyst Expertise and Limits)
Poorly defined background assumptions
Lack of Quality Control/Assurance
Results Interpretation
Personnel Competency
Silo’ed delivery. CM should be a team effort
Reproducible (documentation problem)
Ungraded
21 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Underlying Assumptions INFLUENCE Results
Goes by various names:
– Assumptions Register
– Study Basis
– Calculation Basis
Any result should always be considered in
tandem with the assumptions made
A number of things are key:
– Sensitivity Analysis, Social consent,
Conservatism
Finally – CM is always about numbers – need to
remember the context is largely about keeping
people safe
Ungraded
22 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Background Assumptions: Approach to Modelling Two-phase releases
Modelling single phase releases is
straightforward
Two-phase is more involved
Rationalising to a single phase can be
dangerous
Need to model 2-phase as realistic as possible
Phast has an excellent way of approaching
this…
Ungraded
23 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Background Assumptions: Explosion modelling
Science in this area has improved significantly in
recent years
Congestion/confinement are needed for explosions
with appreciable overpressure
Older models e.g. TNT do not account for
congested/confined area
Nevertheless – still used. Possible reasons?
– Simple?
– Lack of awareness?
Historical focus has been on the overpressure. Now
overpressure and pulse duration
Ungraded
24 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Background Assumptions: Vulnerability Modelling
All about converting hazard ranges into human/asset
impact
Based on historical evidence, experience and
experimental science (some animal studies)
Relatively straightforward for fires and explosions
Toxics is based on animal data and extrapolated to
human beings – hence somewhat uncertain and thus
subject to change
E.g. RIVM recently updated their probits for certain
chemicals. The UK HSE also update toxicity data for
use in risk assessments from time to time.
Ungraded
25 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Background Assumptions: Mixtures
Various boiling points
Vapour phase will be richer in the more volatile
components; Liquid phase will be richer in the
heavier components
Average compositions will not reflect the
characteristics of the real situation
– for e.g a pool fire from heavy hydrocarbons has
different characteristics from one with lighter
material (sootier flame, more smoke)
– Lighter gases will disperse differently
Ungraded
26 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Top tips for conducting Consequence Modelling
Clear problem definition
Clearly outlined and agreed assumptions and study basis
upfront
Selection of a robust consequence analysis tool
Sensitivity Analysis to key assumptions is key – need to
understand the associated uncertainty/influence on the
results
Robust documentation convering all aspects
Do not work in isolation – CM is a team effort that needs
input from various disciplines
Perform Quality Assurance checks
Ungraded
27 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Summary and Conclusions
We have explored Consequence Modelling from a
broad perspective…
Identified some applications and challenges…
And concluded with some top tips for conducting
consequence modelling
Key conclusions:
– Consequence modelling is a key pillar of risk
management
– Done right it can help achieve many RM objectives
– Need to be aware of the pitfalls to leverage it
successfully
Ungraded
28 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Useful References
“Reducing Risks, Protecting People" Health and Safety Executive (2001).
TNO Yellow Book – CPR14E Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects
Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications (2nd Edition), Daniel A. Crowl and Joseph F. Louvar,
2002 Edition, Publishers : Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Lees – Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
CCPS Publications (Various) E.g. Guidelines for consequence analysis of chemical releases (1999)
Kletz, T. What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters (1998) Gulf (and others)
Trade industry Publications: OGP, Oil and Gas UK, CIA, API etc.
Ungraded
29 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
Notes
For further information about today’s webinar or Phast, please
contact us:
[Link]@[Link]
For more information about Phast, please see:
[Link]
For future events, please see:
[Link]
Ungraded
30 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
[Link]
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
Ungraded
31 DNV GL © 01 February 2017
